NIAMATHULLA Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case raises an important question under Article 282 of the Constitution of India as to the limits of Judicial Review of the spending powers of the State. Where should we draw the line? The appeal was filed by the party in person in the Writ Petition, O.P. 10356 of 1992, P.A. Niamathulla of Aluva, against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 14th August 1992.

(2.) IN the Writ Petition, writ Petitioner challenged the distribution of KELTRON Colour Television sets to the members of the Kerala Legislative Assembly by Respondents 1 to 3. 141 Television sets, said to be costing about 19 lakhs of rupees were distributed to the Legislators and the grievance of the writ Petitioner -Appellant was that this ought not to have been done. Of course, me writ Petitioner raised the contention that the said gift amounts to illegal gratification, an offence coming under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code. Distribution of free gifts to all members of the Legislature, according to the writ Petitioner, is not permissible under the Payment of Salaries and Allowances Act, 1951 (Act 14 of 1951). He further contended that distribution of Television sets would amount to using public funds and that the Government has no power to spend public funds in such a manner. He also relies upon Article 195 of the Constitution to say that' personal gifts would go against the said provision. It is also stated that no public sector undertaking would undertake to provide Television sets without the consideration thereof being paid to it by those who purchase the said Television sets. He also referred to the financial difficulties of the State as disclosed from G.O. (P) No. 366/91/Fin., dated 15th April 1992 and contended that when the State was suffering from acute financial problems, the above said distribution of the Television sets belonged to the KELTRON was not warranted. He also relied upon Article 14 of the Constitution. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. It is against the said judgment that this appeal has been filed.

(3.) A counter affidavit was initially filed on 18th June 1993 on behalf of the first Respondent. In the said statement, it was stated that the issue of Television sets was not a matter to be decided under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is stated that the proposal to provide Television sets to the Members of the Legislative Assembly was announced on the floor of the House by the Honourable Speaker of the Kerala Legislative Assembly and that on 1st April 1992 the Honourable Speaker informed the Members of the Legislative Assembly that, as requested by him, the Minister for Industries would give to all the Members of the Legislative Assembly, a colour Television set free of cost within a few days. The above said request is stated to be in the context that M.L. As. "used to be given such presentations in the past". It was then stated in the counter affidavit that the proposal to provide TV sets to the M.L.As. was discussed and cleared by the Council of Ministers and on that basis the KELTRON was requested to supply the TV sets. Accordingly, KELTRON supplied the TV sets and the bill was in a sum of Rs. 20,00,724. A total number of 77 M.L.As. have received the TV sets from the Estate Officer. Though a few Ors. also collected the TV sets, they subsequently returned it to the Estate Officer. Since the KELTRON could not take back the sold TV sets and place them for sale in the market, the Government decided that the remaining TV sets would be distributed to the Juvenile Homes, Homes for Old -aged, Poor Homes and other Institutions where destitutes are accommodated and run by the Department of Social Welfare and also to the orphanages to be selected by the Department of Social Welfare. Accordingly, the Director of Social Welfare was directed to collect the TV sets from the Legislature Secretariat for distribution as stated above. The Government then decided to request six 'profit -making public sector undertakings' to meet the cost of the TV sets and Government wrote to the Managing Directors of the said undertakings to make payment to the KELTRON. It was then stated that 'subsequently the KELTRON has decided to treat the above mentioned supply of television sets as a publicity measure'. Government further stated in paragraph 7 of the counter that these presentations were in line with other presentations made in the past such as 'costly dinner sets, transistor radios etc.'. It was denied that there is any offence under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code. It was also stated that Act 14 of 1951 has no relevance. Government felt that providing TV sets to the M.L. As. would help them discharge their functions and duties better.